April 23, 2007

By now, most of you will have heard about the recent terminations of many (8) U.S. Attorney's by the Attorney General of The United States, Alberto Gonzales. No doubt you have heard about all of the controversy that has been generated.

As a result of the irregularities surrounding the dismissals, the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted the persons involved, including Karl Rove...

Harriet Miers...

and Attorney General Gonzales...

to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The White House fought tooth and nail, citing executive privilege, to keep White House staff members from having to testify under oath. Hmm. Am I the only person that has a problem with this?

Let's look at it this way: How well do you think it would go over when I make an arrest and then tell the judge, "Your honor, I'm happy to testify in this case, but I won't do it under oath, and I won't do it with a court reporter present, and only if you agree not to tell the public"? How do you think it would go from there? Not well, I can assure you... but this is what the White House wants. The President doesn't want his staff compelled to tell the truth.

Something is wrong with that, my friends.

We shouldn't be surprised, though. The President is a bloody liar, himself, and has surropunded himself with like-minded people.

Eventually the testimony conditions (after some compromising) were agreed to by all parties, and AG Gonzales was compelled to testify, under oath, with a court reporter, and on television. Before his testimony, however, Mr. Gonzales had several weeks of rehearsal and preparation time for his hearing, even cancelling his scheduled vacation around Easter, in order to have more time to prepare.

**News Flash** YOU DON'T NEED TWO WEEKS OF PREPARATION TO TELL THE BLOODY TRUTH!

On the day of his testimony AG Gonzales used the term "I don't recall" or words to that effect at least 45 times.

45 times.

This man is the Attorney General of the United States, as such he is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. He is supposed to be the guy in charge of enforcing our laws. This is a man who was once the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court... he should know a bit about the law, and about testimony. Saying "I don't recall" so many times while on the witness stand must make anyone hearing this, question the man's integrity or fitness to testify.

According to documents that surfaced through this investigation, AG Gonzales has attended meetings (which he earlier claimed he didn't attend), and detailed briefings (which he claims not to remember) on terminating the employment of 8 U.S. Attorneys. He doesn't remember any of it? He doesn't remember signing documents? His staff is making these decisions for him and he isn't even consulted? Is the Attorney General suffering from Alzheimer's?

I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzales, or "Gonzo" as President Bush calls him, but this isn't good enough.

Either you fired those people for political reasons in some sort of partisan shaking of the law enforcement tree, in which case you should resign, or the Department of Justice is completely out of control because of your incompetence, in which case you should be fired. In either case, you should leave office.

Regular rank and file cops can lose their jobs even at the hint of impropriety. This is because you can't hold a position of public trust if you are a liar, a thief, or someone who when under oath, is prone to dissemble.

You, sir, are a sleazeball. I wouldn't trust you, or any of your lickspittle coterie of thugs, liars, wingnuts, and Regent University graduates, to guard the most rancid whorehouse in Olongapo.

You disgust me.... but this is what we get from people that think torture is alright, as long as you don't call it torture, and the Geneva convention on the treatment of Prisoners of War is irrelevant as long as you call them "detainees".

March 17, 2007

Joy, at Gingajoy recently posted a series of questions aimed at her community of bloggers that I found quite interesting.

Joy's questions were directed at the so-called "mommyblogging community" to which I don't belong, even though I think I can claim associate membership since many of you that read my blog (and I read yours) ARE members of that community. By the way, if you are of a mind, go by her blog and give it a read.

Whether or not I belong to that community isn't all that important here, though. This is about this particular community in general and how it formed.

For me, this whole blogging lark was just a way to put my thoughts in a printed form... but like so many bloggers, I guess, once you start writing, you also start visiting the blogs of others. Comments left at blogs lead to others reading your blog. The next thing you know, things start to snowball and there you are.

These questions are about my blog and the people who read it... those that form this sort of random community.

Here are the questions, and my answers to them.

1. Who are we?

In the case of my blog, I'd have to say that we are a VERY eclectic loosely-knit group of people. We are ethnically and culturally diverse. We are from New York city, L.A., Lawrence, Kansas, Washington D.C. and it's suburbs, Washington state, rural Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Texas, and many, many other places.

We are Black, white, multi-ethnic, and probably lots of other things.

We are straight, we are gay, we are married, we are not, we have children, we are childless, we are college educated (some with advanced degrees), and some of us were lucky to make it out of high-school... hell, some of you may even have voted for George W. Bush (please don't tell me, if you did!)

I don't think I could possibly pigeonhole this group of people by trying to define it... so I won't. Definitions impose limits. I don't like limits.

2. Who am I writing to? Who is my audience?

I suppose this is THE most important question that a writer can and should ask of him/herself. In my case, I'm writing to any and everyone that will listen, particularly when I ask questions or make statements on politics, culture and/or race.

I suppose saying that I am writing to everyone is a bit self-indulgent... but it is true. I write for anyone who will listen/read. I reckon that a therapist would probably tell you that I am just some oddball, kilt-wearing, narcissist. Maybe I am. I just like to communicate with people. I'm chatty. I thrive at small talk.

3. Why are we writing? What is our purpose?

Probably because I want to be heard. Don't we all want to be heard? Isn't that the best thing about blogging? I'm not trying to change the world, here. This is my way to make a Seuss-ian "Yopp" (look it up, you parents of small kids should know from whence I speak).

4. What is the context for my writing? What am I saying? What is my message?

Simply this: I get to socialize without consuming an unreasonable amount of my limited free time. I get to shout about GWB's disastrous policies to a wider audience. On a daily basis, I get to share myself with more people than I can in the corporeal world. I learn things from other like-minded souls. I can expand my solidarity with people who have similar social and political outlooks. I can fellowship and share the gospel with fellow believers and share my faith with others in a non-scary, non-pushy, non-intrusive way.

I asked Joy if she minded if I re-posted her questions here, and she graciously assented. She said that she was interested in seeing the answers. I have to say that I am every bit as interested in seeing YOUR answers.

March 15, 2007

Those of you that have been reading my blog for the last several months, you have been waiting patiently for me to tell you about why I wear kilts regularly and to post pictures to go along with.

Well, for you, today is your day.

As you might imagine, wearing a kilt in 21st century America, without benefit of being in a wedding or being an extra in a Mel Gibson movie...

...is an unusual thing... but it is becoming less and less unusual these days. These days, there are no small number of modern kilt purveyors popping up all over, and there are many men to provide the demand for their wares.

For the most part, the success of the modern, casual kilt, the world over, can be credited to one man; A Mexican-American in Seattle Washington, named Steven Villegas was working on a motorcycle (one of his many projects) wearing a pair of shorts made from old, camouflage cargo trousers, but found them too restrictive to move the way he wanted to... so he took a scissors to them, applied some sewing, and the first Utilikilt was born.

I have been wearing Utilikilts since 2001, and the second most common question I get asked is: "Why are you wearing a kilt? You aren't from Scotland!" or words to that effect.

Well here are the answers:

1. Because I can.2. Because I look great in it (I have great legs).3. Because I'm not a complete conformist.4. Because a kilt is almost as cool as a Superman suit.5. Because my wife likes it.6. Because friction is bad (figure that out for yourself).7. For good reproductive health (although I am out of that business).8. Chicks dig it (they do, trust me).9. Because men envy me for doing what I want without regard for what others think.

Where does all of this come from? Oddly enough, the idea was planted as a result of reading a Science Fiction novel when I was a young Marine, in about 1986. The name of the novel was "Methuselah's Children", by Robert A. Heinlein. One of Heinlein's favorite characters through several novels is a fellow named Lazarus Long. No need to talk about the book, or this character other than to say that this guy could usually be found wearing a kilt, which I thought was very cool.

Fast forward nearly twenty years: Mrs Gunfighter, Olivia and I were attending the Virginia Scottish Games in Alexandria, Va. in 2001 (I think) and were having a great time watching the pipe bands, dancers, and sampling the various crafts and foods that were available. While we were browsing about, I remarked to Susan how much I would like to wear a kilt on a regular basis. Problem was, they are rather impractical. Not only are they made for a Scottish climate (made from heavy wool), they don't have pockets and are prohibitively expensive (a traditional kilt would cost me around $600).

Well, being that it was mid-June, here in Virginia, and hotter than hell, I took an opportunity to get some lemonade for us, while Susan waited in the shade. While I was standing in the line, I noticed a guy in the line at the next booth, wearing a kilt. Which wasn't uncommon, considering where we were, but the thing that made this guy so UNcommon, was that his kilt was black! and it had large cargo pockets!

When I got our lemonade, I noticed that logo over the back pocket (it had back pockets, too!) said "Utilikilts". I was determined, there and then, to find out more.

A few days later, I did a search (was there even a Google, then?) for Utilikilts and found their website, and the rest is history. I now own 5 Utilikilts, and plan on ordering a new one (this one in leather) some time soon.

If you are wondering about the reaction I get to wearing a kilt, I'll tell you this, and my wife will attest to it if you ask her: Women I have never seen before have followed me in the mall; have been brazen enough to ask if I was wearing any underwear; have come up to me and flat-out ask if I was married; have looked me in the face and said "I wish my husband was half the man you are"; have said to me: "OhmyGod! That is the sexiest thing I have ever seen!, can I borrow you for a while?" I must say, I find it hugely flattering. I get this kind of a reaction from women when I am rapidly approaching (well, OK, IN) middle age, getting fatter by the minute, and am only so-so good looking.

Men react in a range of ways. Some tell me how cool it looks. Some tell me they wish they had the nerve. Most are neutral, although many men ask this question: "Aren't you afraid someone will give you a hard time about it?" To which I answer: "Nobody has ever given me any grief about wearing a kilt... after all, who wants to have his ass kicked by a man wearing a skirt?"

So there you are.

Most often, when people think about kilts, they have this sort of image...

...in their heads, but today, kilts can be found in lots of places, from athletic events...

To hiking...

To a rock and roll band at Disneyworld...

To the war in Iraq.

To selling a kilt to a woman so she can molest her man while he wears it

At least, that's what she told me (that is me, on the left... oh God, it was so hot that day!)

March 08, 2007

Are any of you familiar with this company? They sell all sorts of sporting apparel for men, women, and children. In addition, they sell "Tactical" gear, including underwear, and they are quite popular with military and police personnel. Their claim to fame is making lightweight garments that help wick away sweat in order to keep you cool(er) in the summer, and warmer in the winter.

I'm all about good gear, but to tell you the truth, at this stage in my career, I leave it to the younger folks to do the sweltering and the freezing most of the time... the benefits of seniority, I guess.

Anyway, I still get all sorts of catalogues from companies that want us to buy whatever new "must have" item is out this month.

Well, Under Armour is no different, and I recently got their 2007 catalogue. I flipped through it figuring that is just more of the same stuff that I won't be buying, until I go to the women's apparel and saw this:

The Power Thong:

This is the text that went with the photo:

POWER THONG

"The Under Armour® performance thong, delivered in an athletic cut to prevent riding and chafing. Seamless construction and knit-in labeling ensure an unobtrusive garment that moves with you."

I'm guessing that the term "unobtrusive garment has something to do with visible panty lines.

OK... when the SWAT team is about to move in on a barricaded suspect, who may be armed...

... does anybody give a crap about a visible panty line?

Tactical uniforms tend to be baggy because you may need to fight or run or do things that tighter clothing might be too restrictive for.

I am trying to think of a delicate way to ask one of the women that I work with if they would wear such a thing on an operation.

March 05, 2007

I have had a bit of an epiphany in the past few days. It was a rather minor epiphany, if one can call an epiphany minor…

It happened as I was watching the NAACP Image awards, about which I will post soon. To cut right to the chase, it was when India.Arie was singing her hit song called "I am Not My Hair". It is a smokin' tune, it really is. I had never heard it before, but hearing it, and being able to repeat it at will courtesy of TiVo, brought up old memories… and sparked renewed thought on the age old subject in the black community… "Good" hair.

All of the black women who just read those words started nodding their heads upon seeing them.

"Good" hair

"Good" hair.

"Good" hair.

These words have always been able to send me on a tear. Their use upsets me as much as the use of racial epithets… as much as the use of epithets hurled at any group or community.

"Good” hair.

For generations, within the black community, the term "good" hair, means hair that is different from ours. More to the point, different from the texture of those of us who are, ancestrally, from sub-Saharan Africa.

Now, you might think that having generational memories of intra-ethnic strife based on something as trivial as hair texture, is silly. Perhaps it is, but, I entreat you to look at it from a different perspective.

Historically, from the beginning of chattel slavery in America, A slave of the more pure African ethno-type was seen as something less than, or not as good as, a slave of mixed African and European ancestry. Eventually, as more slaves were brought to America, and more and more ethnically mixed slaves were born, a new social stratum was born. The dark skinned slaves were used as field labor… little better than draft animals that could talk, in most cases. The so-called mulatto slaves tended to be used in the homes of the owners as maids and household servants. One of those things that marked the partly white slave was, beside their skin color, their hair… particularly in women. You see, these women had lighter skin, usually ate better, often had more education (such as it was) and had more or better clothing, befitting their closeness to the master’s family.

Fast forward to the early 20th century. Slavery has been dead for a generation or so. Black Americans are beginning to get a bigger piece of the American pie. Black entrepreneurs like “Madam” C.J. Walker are even becoming quite wealthy. The industrial revolution is changing the country, making goods and services available to people of the most moderate or humble means. In the black community, this was indicated, in one instance, by the ability to straighten the naturally tightly curled hair of the African American. Men, in many cases used products as lye and heavy pomades to straighten their hair. Women were using “hot combs": and even flat irons to straighten their hair. Black people were spending inordinate amounts of time and money trying to turn their hair into “Good” hair. Good hair. Hair that was “less black”.

Fast forward again. This time it is the early 1970's and wee Gunfighter is almost ten years old. Ten years old, and nearly nauseated by the stench of singed and burned hair. A stench produced by the “straightening” comb that is heating in the open flame of the gas stove in our kitchen. You see, even though this was around the time of the burgeoning black consciousness movement that grew out of the civil-rights era, we were still conscious about out hair. Witness even the strongest black icons of the period… James Brown, and Ron O'Neal, the cat that played "Superfly”, had straightened their hair. Diana Ross & The Supremes, Tina Turner, Lola Falana, Dianne Carrol… all of these people, women in particular, were sayin’ it loud, “I’m black, and I’m proud!”... as long as I can look like I’ve got “good” hair, that is.

For generations, black women have damaged their hair with chemicals, hot irons, and dye, so that their hair would make them look less black. Women that could afford to go to more expensive beauty parlors could have this work done by others. People that couldn't did it at home and often destroyed their hair for years. Having "good" hair became something of a societal marker.

"Did y'all see so-and-so in church?, did you see her nappy-ass head?"

To appear publicly with nappy hair was nigh unforgivable.

When I was a kid, a good way for two girls to get in a knock-down drag-out fight, was to start some stuff about somebody’s “nappy” hair.

I could go on and on, and while some of you may be scratching your heads wondering if your friend Gunfighter hasn't been using some chemicals himself, trust me when I say that there are others nodding their heads in memory.

So, let us fast forward one last time... we'll call our destination: 2007. What now? What are the hair issues of today? To tell you truth, I'm not sure. The ability to get your hair straightened into the most gravity-defying hair sculpture is available to nearly everyone. So what does it mean?

I'll tell you what it means in the eyes of your humble correspondent. It means that however black women... hell, any women, choose to wear their hair. The hairstyle is not what defines them.

In her anthemic song, India.Arie hits the nail right on the head when she says:

"Good hair means curls and wavesBad hair means you look like a slaveAt the turn of the century Its time for us to redefine who we beYou can shave it off Like a South African beautyOr get in on lockLike Bob MarleyYou can rock it straightLike Oprah WinfreyIf its not what's on your headIts what's underneath and say HEY....

I am not my hairI am not this skinI am not your expectations no noI am not my hair I am not this skin I am a soul that lives within"

Today, in 2007, black people wearing their hair straight doesn't make us less black, it doesn't make us smarter, it doesn't make us better. The converse is also true... having natural hair doesn't make us more black, more authentic, or ugly, or stupid. Hair isn't so much of a social statement as much as it is about the freedom to choose.

March 03, 2007

I have been honored by Dave G., from over at My Grimm Reality, with a Thinking Blogger Award.

Apparently, some of the things that I write make Dave think. Dave was kind enough to say a few nice things about me here. Thanks, Dave!

So... since you have probably concluded your polite applause, allow me to make the following remarks:

First, I'd like to thank everyone, everywhere for making my blog possible. As you all know, no one does anything on his/her own in this business, so I would be remiss if I didn't thank all of the cast and crew for making this little hobby of mine so very, very, special.

I would also like to thank Suzanne, for showing me how to code, so that my blog would be more appealing.

Most importantly, I would like to thank Mrs Gunfighter. Not because she had anything to do with my blog, but because she is so sweet (and hot, too!). Thanks for marrying be baby!, you're the best.

Lastly, I'd like to thank the United States Marine Corps, for unleashing the killer that was always lurking within.... oh, and (Turn off that damned music! I'm almost done!) I'd like to thank Sandra Scarpato, who was my Grammar, Usage, and Composition teacher in my Senior year at Union High School. Thank you, Mrs Scarpato... looking back through the years, I now appreciate all of the time we spent diagraming sentences.(ok, NOW you can play the music!)

Back to business. This award is also a meme of sorts. It falls upon me, as an award recipient, to name 5 other blogs that make ME think. For those of you I am about to name, Please refer to the following rules:

If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think, Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme.

Optional: Proudly display the "Thinking Blogger Award" with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn't fit your blog).

January 25, 2007

When GWB finished the State of The Union address the other night, there was a close-up shot of him as he exited the chamber. As he passed behind a Secret Service agent, the camera had a really tight shot of the agent's face, and I found myself looking into the face of a classmate of mine from when we first went to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) lo, those many years ago.

He had been with a different agency then, and had subsequently left that agency to work with the Secret Service, but I hadn't seen him in years, and didn't know he was doing protection.

January 19, 2007

I'm talking about the kinds of movies men watch that are full of fights, explosions, guns, explosions... and guns. Throw in some sports and perhaps a bit of gratuitous frontal nudity, and we're all set.

Oh, I know that many of the people reading this are women,and that women may like some of these movies, too, but that doesn't really matter. These movies were made for men, but if our wives, girlfriends, lifepartners or whatever want to enjoy them with us, so much the better!

By now, the men reading this post are smiling, and the ladies are probably rolling their eyes... but you gotta love the man-movie... it is the antithesis of the chick-flick.

In this genre, you won't find anything like "The Ya-Ya Sisterhood", or "Sisterhood of The Traveling Pants", "The Notebook", or "Thelma & Louise".

TTBM and Grimm are probably already listing titles in their heads. I won't go on about what makes a movie a man-movie, you'll figure it out soon enough.

Today's review is of a splendid little western from 1993 called: Tombstone

This movie is my second favorite western, immediately following "The Outlaw Josey Wales".

Have any of you seen this movie? It stars Kurt Russel, Bill Paxton, Val Kilmer, and Sam Elliot, as Wyatt Earp, his brothers Virgil and Morgan, and "Doc" Holliday.

To make a long story short, Wyatt Earp and his posse gun down a gang known as the "Cowboys" and rid Tombstone, Arizona of their evil influence. Along the way, Wyatt falls for the pretty singer/actress (played by Dana Delaney) that has recently come to town.

Although Kurt Russel was good as Wyatt Earp, my favorite character was John "Doc" Holliday, as portrayed by Val Kilmer (his finest work, as far as I am concerned).

This movie lasted about 90 minutes, but, in that time, some twenty-odd people are either shot or stabbed... men, you just gotta love it!

DISCLAIMER: I know that some of you ladies probably like some of the movies that I mentioned... but these really are made for us men.